from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Jeanie K.
plaintiff appeals from the district court's dismissal of
her petition for judicial review for failing to serve the
board within the required ten-day period.
Michael M. Sellers of Sellers, Galenbeck & Nelson, Des
Moines, for appellant.
M. Baustian and David M. Ranscht, Assistant Attorneys
General, for appellee.
Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ.
POTTERFIELD, PRESIDING JUDGE.
Van Zetten appeals the district court's dismissal of her
petition for judicial review for failing to serve the Iowa
Board of Cosmetology Arts and Sciences within the ten-day
window required by Iowa Code section 17A.19(2) (2015).
supreme court has "rejected a standard of strict or
literal compliance with section 17A.19(2)," but
"substantial compliance with statutory prerequisites is
essential for the district court to acquire
jurisdiction." Cowell v. All-American, Inc.,
308 N.W.2d 92, 94 (Iowa 1981). Iowa Code section 17A.19(2)
provides, in pertinent part:
Within ten days after the filing of a petition for judicial
review the petitioner shall serve by the means provided in
the Iowa rules of civil procedure for the personal service of
an original notice, or shall mail copies of the petition to
all parties named in the petition and, if the petition
involves review of agency action in a contested case, all
parties of record in that case before the agency. Such
personal service or mailing shall be jurisdictional. . . .
Proof of mailing shall be by affidavit. . . .
review the district court's dismissal of Van Zetten's
petition for judicial review for correction of errors at law.
See Strickland v. Iowa Bd. of Med., 764 N.W.2d 559,
561 (Iowa Ct. App. 2009).
Van Zetten filed a timely petition for judicial review on May
3, 2017. On May 19, the counsel for the board received, via
United States mail, a copy of the original notice and
petition for judicial review. The original notice incorrectly
stated the petition for judicial review was filed April 27,
and the petition for judicial review contained an unsigned
certificate of mail dated May 3. The envelope containing the
items arrived was postmarked May 17, 2017.
25, the board filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the district
court lacked jurisdiction to decide the petition for review
because the board had not been sent a copy of the petition
within ten days of it being filed.
same day, Van Zetten filed a resistance to the board's
motion. She attached to her resistance an affidavit of
mailing from her attorney's legal assistant, in which the
legal assistant avowed she had mailed counsel for the board
the original notice and petition for judicial review on May
3, 2017. The legal assistant swore that she mailed a second
"courtesy" copy, which included the case number
issued by the clerk of court, to the board's counsel on
May 17. She further swore that no envelopes or documents had
been returned by the United States Postal Service.
district court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss. At
the hearing, the attorney for Van Zetten made a professional
statement that he "observed the envelope with the
petition being deposited at the U.S. post office slot."
When asked by the court, he indicated he did not observe
whether the envelope had ...